© the other press ¢ Opinions February 18, 2004 David Suzuki Politicians often complain that I’m too hard on them. “You don’t under- stand,” they say. “We have all these competing interests we have to address. We can’t just focus on the environment. We've got health care, the economy and all these other problems to worry about.” And that makes me mad. Because it shows that they really aren't listening, not only to envi- ronmental groups, but also to sci- entists, health care organizations, municipalities, city planners, and others. Many of these groups have long recognized that the health of our country as a whole, let alone the economy, depends on the qual- ity of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the com- munities we live in, and our ability to get around. In spite of the efforts of these organizations, many politicians and business leaders continue to spout the old “environment versus econo- my” mantra as justification for poor e Matters -be Sustainable Within a David Suzuki Foundation environmental practices. In fact, that’s what I expected to hear last week when I had a chance to sit down with Prime Minister Paul Martin. Yet I was pleasantly sur- prised. Politicians are always full of promises, but Mr. Martin seems genuinely concerned — about Canada’s environmental record. More important, he clearly recog- nizes the connection between the health of Canada’s environment and that of our citizens. Lawyer David Boyd explains this connection in our recent report Sustainability within a generation: A new vision for Canada. Mr. Boyd points out that, in spite of our rep- utation as an environmental leader, Canada ranks near the bottom of developed countries in terms of issues like transportation, waste, energy use, air pollution and water use. Partly because of poor govern- ment policies, Canadians are some of the most wasteful people on the planet. Each of us uses the equiva- lent of 575,000 litres of oil and 125 million litres of water in our life- times. No wonder our cities are polluted! For Canada to become sustain- able—that is, reach a state where our activities are not depleting the resources we depend on for our health and well-being—we need fundamental policy shifts, starting at the highest level, that encourage efficiency and innovation and dis- courage waste. Many of these poli- cy shifts are what some people call “no brainers,” things like better efficiency standards for appliances and better insulation standards for our homes. By reducing the amount of energy we need to heat our houses and power our appli- ances, we will save money, reduce stress on the electricity grid (like the stress that caused last summer's blackout in Ontario), reduce pollu- tion, and slow global warming. Fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles are also straight out of the dark ages. It’s simply bizarre that just one of the vehicles in Ford’s new-car line-up gets better fuel effi- ciency than Henry Ford’s 1912 Model T. And it’s shocking that new vehicles in today’s showrooms, on average, burn the same amount of fuel as new vehicles did in 1980. Where’s the progress in that? Where's the innovation? To develop a clean, modern economy, we have to address these inadequacies. We have to reduce our dependence on oil, coal, and gas that cause air pollution and cli- mate change. We have to shift to clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, as many European coutries have already suc- cessfully done. I presented Prime Minister Martin with a copy of Sustainability within a Generation at our meeting in Ottawa and urged him and his staff to give these issues the atten- tion they deserve. Mr. Martin says that he’s committed to renewable energy and energy efficiency and that he’s committed to making our cities healthier and cleaner. Those are good words, but the prime minister will be judged by his actions on these issues in the coming months. I’ve been disap- pointed by promises from Ottawa too many times to get my hopes up. Still, this is Prime Minister Martin’s opportunity to be a real visionary on the world stage. If he steps up and takes advantage of it, Canada could make real steps to a cleaner, healthier future. Take the Nature Challenge at. Stolen Words Kali Thurber Opinions Editor The week after Valentine’s Day always lingers like an artichoke for breakfast—whether you fed chocolate covered strawberries to the love of your life, or sulked in a bath of champagne vomit, it’s inevitable that you need a good refresher on the subject of love. This is a quote from Tom Robbins—an expert on obscure love, a fiction writer, and the holder of this weeks Stolen Words trophy. “The bottom line is that (a) people are never perfect, but love can be, (b) that is the one and only way that the mediocre and vile can be transformed, and (c) doing that makes it that. We waste our time looking for the perfect lover, instead of creating the perfect love.” Janklow Sentenced is Justice Denied Simon Jester OP Contributor For those of you who haven't been following history, William Janklow is the guy who killed Randy Scott with his car as Scott was riding his motorbike through a four-way stop intersection. Many people are mar- veling at the similarities between Bill Janklow and a man he knew— Leonard Peltier. It was bound to happen, of course—Janklow had 12 speeding tickets in four years, and had a pile - up of eight other accidents over the past ten years. In 1999 he said, “If someone told me I was going to jail for two days for speeding, my habits would change.” He was sentenced a little while ago in Moody County Court, and he'll get his license back in three years. Leonard Peltier, how- ever, is unlikely to be reapplying for his driver's license anytime soon. Like Peltier, Janklow had a history of violence. Peltier is suspected of involvement in at least three shoot- ings. Janklow was convicted of a juvenile rape and stands accused of a later accusation of violently raping a 15-year-old. Both men have apparently been heard to utter threats against per- sons—Peltier apparently threatened to kill Milwaukee plainclothes police officers Ronald Hlavinka and James Ecles during an arrest later proven to be a frame. Janklow, while in a position of authority on the Rosebud Reservation, allegedly Fae erat threatened Jancita Eagle Deer with a gun while raping her and was in later times heard to say: “The way to deal with Dennis Banks is with a bullet between the eyes.” He’s also on record as saying “The way to stop AIM (American Indian Movement) is to put a bullet through their head.” Both have been fugitives— Janklow never returned to Rosebud Reservation for fear of prosecution, and before leaving his post as head of legal services, changed procedure so that complaints such as rape had to be routed through him directly, creating an effective legal roadblock. Peltier, released following attempted murder charges stemming from the Milwaukee sidewalk scuffle, jumped bail and went west. Like Janklow, Peltier experienced a political awakening in later life. Janklow, barred from practicing law on Rosebud Indian Reservation after the rape allegation, joined the Attorney General’s office of South Dakota as chief prosecutor. Leonard Peltier, like many other young Indians, joined the American Indian Movement. Janklow went on to run for Governor, and served three terms. Peltier went on to prison, and is serving two life terms. It was bound to happen, of course: Between 1973 and 1976, 64 Indians were killed on Pine Ridge http://www.otherpress.ca Reservation. Most of these killings were carried out by the GOONs (Guardians Of the Oglala Nation), who were in the pay of the tribal chairman, an AIM-hating BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) stooge. Worse—instead of investigating murders, the local FBI had been working a COINTELPRO (FBI term for a campaign of discredita- tion and undermining support) operation against AIM. In part due to the huge tensions this created, two FBI agents, Jack Coler and Ron Williams, were mur- dered at Jumping Bull Ranch, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Wounded during an exchange of gunfire with several assailants, they lay in the dirt until someone fin- ished them off, shooting them to death at point-blank range. Peltier was there—this much is known. What's not known, and has never been proven, is that Leonard Peltier pulled the trigger of the gun that killed agents Coler and Williams. For the sake of all those with something invested in this case I wish it had been proven that it was Peltier. But it just ain't so. William Janklow Canada handed the fugitive, Peltier, over to the US on the strength of a warrant later deter- mined to be suspect, which brought about the meeting between Leonard Peltier and Bill Janklow. In his offi- cial capacity, Janklow impelled the prosecution of Peltier into two con- secutive life sentences. The trial was a mockery of modern procedure, and the government has admitted that in the absence of compelling evidence, and the presence of chi- canery on the part of the FBI and prosecutors, Leonard Peltier was basically sent to prison for simply being at the scene, although what he was convicted of was murder. James Leach, a lawyer who defended a number of AIM mem- bers, said later that the reason Peltier was so actively pursued was “because he participated in a shoot-out with FBI agents at the conclusion of which two agents were executed.” But justice isn’t about suspicion— its about proof beyond reasonable doubt—which isn’t there. I wish it was, and so, no doubt, do the agent's families. But a rigged trial doesn’t do justice for anyone—least of all the victims. Which is where we come to the major difference between the two men: Peltier was convicted of dou- ble murder in the absence of cer- tainty as to whether he was guilty or not. Nonetheless, he’s been in jail for 27 years. The highest estimate I could find on the average length of a murder sentence is 24 years. Most estimates are around six to eight years. During the Clinton administra- tion, the FBI organized a 500-agent march in Washington to protest the possibility of clemency or parole. The FBI (who deny any wrongdo- ing, just like Peltier) seem to have hindered efforts to unravel the affair—suing author Peter Matheissen over accusations in his book on the case, and interfering with for Freedom Of (FOIA) documents requests Information